If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A North Branch man is standing up for what he believes is his right bear arms, even inside the building that houses the Lapeer County Sheriff’s Department and Lapeer County Jail.
Jason Harrison came to a Lapeer County Commission meeting last month, expressing his concerns that the signs on the doors of the Sheriff’s Department prohibiting concealed weapons as unlawful. After the meeting, he was told by Commissioner Cheryl Clark that to her understanding the signs had been changed or removed. Harrison said he was thrilled when he heard that.
“I drove immediately when I left there to the sheriff’s department,” he said.
It all started, Harrison said, when he went into the sheriff’s department to drop off the required registration paperwork for a new pistol he had purchased. He said he was wearing the gun, and after he saw the sign, he unconcealed it before entering the lobby. He said the person he spoke to was not happy to see him with the gun. He spoke to a sergeant who said the sign was legal, and he was asked to leave the building and come in without a firearm in the future if he wanted to do business there.
Harrison is loosely associated with a group called Michigan Open Carry, and said the issue of firearm rights has been “kind of a hobby” of his for a few years.
“I think the gun is the symbol of freedom and liberty,” he said, saying that every totalitarian government in history has taken away citizens rights to bear arms, citing Russia and Nazi Germany as examples. “If you’re in America, we’re a free society.”
On Thursday, he came in front of the county commissioners again to tell them that the sign has not, in fact, been removed, and that he still believes it is illegal. He asked them to “compel the sheriff” to remove the sign.
Commissioners responded that they did not have the authority to make the sheriff remove the sign, however, Commissioner Ian Kempf did promise to contact Prosecutor Byron Konschuh to get his opinion on the issue.
“Byron has looked at it before and is looking at it again.” Kempf said, adding that he plant to have konschuh’s firm opinion on the matter by this Thursdays County Commission meeting.
Kempf added that the tentative opinion is that the sheriff’s department is connected to the jail and therefore falls under the exemption to the law that applies to prisons.
“I think that the other thing that is going to come up is that the magistrates go to the jail to hold trials there, so it’s acting also as a working courthouse and courthouses are clearly covered.” Kempf said.
Kempf said he is fine with addressing Harrison’s concerns as a citizen.
“he clearly has a passion.” Kempf said. “He’s been very polite and respectful and I think he deserves an answer and we’re more than happy to get it for him.”

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

Sounds to me like they are looking at two possible loop holes to validate the sign. I always thought it was an illegal sign and that they really didn`t care what anyone thought. Hopefully Byron Konschuh finds the sign illegal and that this issue comes to an end.

This time, according to the article, the prosecutor told the sheriff that the weapon prohibition is lawful according to mcl 801.262 (which prohibits bringing weapons to a jail for the use or benefit of a prisoner.

Grasping at straws are we?

801.262 Prohibited acts; weapons.
Sec. 2.

(1) Unless authorized by the chief administrator of the jail, a person shall not do either of the following:

(a) Bring into a jail or a building appurtenant to a jail, or onto the grounds used for jail purposes, for the use or benefit of a prisoner, any weapon or other item that may be used to injure a prisoner or other person, or used to assist a prisoner in escaping from jail.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

Kempf said. “He’s been very polite and respectful and I think he deserves an answer and we’re more than happy to get it for him.”

I'm glad to hear it put this way.

It's just code speak for: passion = "this nut has been well behaved up to this point..." The prosecutor works FOR the police, not the other way around. Mr. Harrison has been asking nicely since last fall if I recall correctly? I wonder what their prosecutor will decide..NOT, it was decided long ago, without a court battle they will not remove the signs and they will twist & bend the law to suit them as usual.

Sorry I do not mean to be negative, but it's the same old song & dance here from "our" leaders. Okay since a magistrate is there on occasions the public lobby magically becomes a court house??? Okay by that logic whenever any official from the court is in transit to and from a facility to conduct court business they should be covered by a 1,000 foot PFZ right?

Edit To Add - Maybe all court officials should be issued special "royal purple" flashers and a siren that screams "make way for the King's men!" Just saying...

Last edited by Glock9mmOldStyle; 07-19-2012 at 12:20 PM.

“A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

*The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

This time, according to the article, the prosecutor told the sheriff that the weapon prohibition is lawful according to mcl 801.262 (which prohibits bringing weapons to a jail for the use or benefit of a prisoner.

Grasping at straws are we?

As written, that law requires intent to provide the weapon to a prisoner, does it not?

As written, that law requires intent to provide the weapon to a prisoner, does it not?

My interpretation is the same as yours.

Not to mention the lobby is secured from the rest of the building, and the jail is presumably further secured from the rest of the building. One would need intent, and access in order to provide a weapon for the use or benefit of a prisoner.

A law abiding citizen conducting business inside the secure lobby has neither intent or access.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

I feel really proud reading this. It is not a small victory. It goes a long way to help upholding freedom and to keep our government honest and free of corruption. It shows what one person can do with patience, respect and persistence. Thank you, lapeer20m.

Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

My reasons to OC
1. to raise awareness of the legality of open carry in Michigan
2. To raise awareness that good people carry guns
3. A deterrent to people so that I won't be targeted
4. Because it's more comfortable than CC in most situations
5. Because I can and want to
6. Because it's perfectly legal
7. Self defense